Now I'm imagining a Draconic heritage character, with the Draconic bloodline by class or feat, with the barbarian Draconic rage feature, who also is a Draconic disciple and a Draconic acolyte. With access to summon dragon spells by class or trick magic item. With a dragonnet familiar.
And they are ALL related to the character.
And as a result, anytime they manifest their patron, they get nagged, "You only ever call when you need something. Why don't you ever call just to say hello? And would it kill you to visit in the flesh every so often?"
So, this thread isn't meant to be "here's what I want the Remastered Psychic to be able to do". Rather, it is things about the pre-Master Psychic that the remaster needs to clarify for the sake of reduced headaches:
1) How the Psychic Spellcasting feature interacts with the manipulate trait.
2) Psychic has a number of class feats that force others to make saving throws (Psi Burst, Violent Unleash, Psi Catastrophy, Cranial Detonation) but don't specify whether it uses Class or Spell for the DC.
If anyone can think of any others, feel free to say something.
Agreed that is the biggest problem. The new Oracle suffers from the same problem as the Pyschic - you can poach the best part. I for one prefer a sorcerer - oracle over a straight oracle.
Eh. I disagree, ever so slightly though, Gortle. In that the Psychic Dedication does not grant access to the deeper psi cantrips.
I will agree, however, that for the most part, it encourages people to play a different class, then take the dedication, rather than just play that class.
So, I know most dragon-enthusiasts are focused right now on Pathfinder's Dragonic Codex, but I think it bares mentioning that Alien Core gave Starfinder some of it's first space-based dragons!
So yeah, thoughts on the Abysium, Akashic, Cosmic, and Host Dragons?
Oh, how does the Dragon Acolyte compare to the Dragon Discipline?
Squark wrote:
Ectar wrote:
Karys wrote:
Favorite thing is I'm really happy to see draconic kobold options to have a bit of the old kobold flavor if anyone wants it
It me. I want it.
Would you mind expanding upon the additional Dragon-Kobold options?
Several old favorites like Kobold Breath and the Dracomancer feats return, but one new feat that stood out gives you Draconic Momentum, and even lets you re-roll the 1s on your breath weapon damage dice if you use it the same round you crit!
That sounds like something with a very narrow window of activation... that when it does occur, ends up being awesome!
*Although the preview articles did mention that some Despair Dragons choose to focus their powers of fear specifically on those who prey on the innocent.
In other words, the good versions become DragonBatman.
*Slams face into keyboard over causing this debate.*
Clearly, this is something that needs to be addressed. Because until we have something explicitly stating how it works, then both sides can argue their opinion until the cows come home.
I have now discovered the Delight Dragon, and how I would no surprised if dragons of that type would enjoy pranking various cruel or controlling figures.
I was looking at Remastered casting classes... but I skimmed to the later levels when classes gain levels in their other proficiencies (Spells, Weapons, Armor, Saves).
I figured that Spell and Class DCs were different things, but I wanted to be sure, and I didn't know how to find the right answer on AoN.
Admittedly, part of this came about because I was looking at Psi Burst and noticed how it doesn't mention if the DC for the reflex save is based on Class or Spell. Hopefully, that gets cleared up in Remaster. Or who knows? Psychic might be one of the only caster classes to get more than trained in Class DC?
...Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps the Remastered Magus will get higher proficiencies in Class DC and Spellstriking will let them use that in place of Spell DC, like with Attack rolls?
If we're wishing for things, I'd like to wish for the introduction of a benevolent god of undeath, governing over those who "naturally" rise, or are turned against their will, or come to reject the callousness of the more "traditional" undead.
...You mean Arazni? The goddess who used to run Geb (unwillingly)? Who stopped being a lich, and proves your point about the undead potentially being redeemable? Who has the following:
AoN wrote:
Anathema: Create unwilling Undead
Areas of Concern:unwilling undead
Zoken44 wrote:
Or a diety of undeath presiding over those with unfinished business, or denied lives.
I believe that's part of why the Duskwalkers exist.
Also, the Psychopomp Usher Saloc probably covers that alongside second chances.
Also, I think we're all overlooking one additional aspect of this discussion:
Necromancy doesn't just cover creating undead.
Look at Talking Corpse or Hallowed Ground.
Please mention changes to Dark Archive Remastered...
Also, please make the Psychic's Subconscious Mind feats better...
Also, please let the Psychic have three slots a spell rank...
Also, please let the Psychic get some cool focus point feature...
Also, please let Imaginary Weapon NOT have manipulate...
A little sad that there is still no "Chef's Calling". Oh well, I doubt cooking is very relevant to fighting a MASSIVE WALKING EGO!!!
Also, I've said this elsewhere, but I still think:
Spoiler:
That the 'Xanderghul' you're fighting against is a Magical AI Illusionary clone of the actual Xanderghul... and it will be possible to use this information to get the clone to commit suicide.
Why? Because "Xanderghul's" massive ego won't accept the idea of existing as some "imperfect" illusion.
How do they migrate to most every sewer everywhere??
My personal theory is when you get enough magical shit (both literal and metaphorical) thrown into a sewer, that just kind of magically spontaneously form. I'm sure someone would come along and say Otyugh's aren't magically created....and maybe that's true. But figuring out how it happens otherwise is....just something I'd rather not imagine.
Isn't that how a lot of Ooze-type monsters get created?
I'm guessing that sanitation levels are reasonable, mostly because no art depicts waste following in the streets.
Perhaps they have low-level casters who go around using Prestidigitate to clean the streets?
Either that, or there are low-threat monsters that eat waste?
Would not be surprised if it turns out Rahadoum has some concept of germ theory... mostly because they can't rely on Clerics to cure diseases.
Now I'm thinking of, if anyone has read/watched it, "How A Realist Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom".
A few chapters/episodes are dedicated to talking about the protagonist implementing new measures regarding hygiene. Including Aqueducts and cleaning.
Looking through GM core and I'm trying to get ahold of how Archaic items are supposed to work in Starfinder.
Firstly: Archaic items accept runes and can't be normally upgraded. Fair enough. Also, they don't have upgrade slots but can accept property runes. Also, fair.
Secondly: You can spend some money to retrofit an archaic item to no longer be archaic. Great.
But let's say you find an ancient set of full plate, and an ancient longsword, and you don't have the time/workbench to retrofit them. Here are the rules.
1) Archaic Items are easier to break. Destroyed at 3/4 HP, broken at 1/4 . . . fine.
2) Armor has weakness to non-archaic weapons . . . is that . . . is that the ARMOR that has weakness? Like if I try to sunder a set of full plate sitting on a bench without anyone in it . . . it takes extra damage? Or is the person WEARING the armor is vulnerable to modern weapons. If so . . . why? Are you telling me, if someone shoots me with a laser pistol, I'm WORSE OFF with a bunch of leather in the way blocking the laser beam, than if I am bare-chested?
3)Weapons reduce a die of damage when attacking armor. Same question, is this if attacking a person IN armor, or is this to suppose if I took a longsword to some defiance armor, without anybody wearing it, that the longsword would do 1d6 damage instead of 1d8?
As Moosher pointed out, VampByDay (how do you not get vaporized? Lots of sunblock?), those rules are optional, just like how you don't need to include all the rules regarding combat in a vacuum/zero-gravity (and the book even recommends NOT using them unless you plan on having frequent fights in such conditions).
As to your questions, well, I had a question like that myself, and took to the forums about it:
Does anyone target armor/weapons in a fight?
And considering all the responses were pretty much, "No. One, because it is mean. Two, because Paizo barely has rules on targeting attended items . "
So I'm pretty sure the answer to your questions regarding that in 2 and 3 is "Yes to both".
As for your issue regarding armor/no-armor... I'm guessing that is because otherwise they'd have to make Archaic a character trait.
...I will agree that there is an oversight in that part... it does not take clothing into account.
moosher12 wrote:
Though this raises the question, wouldn't no armor mean you get no weakness while wearing any armor gives you weakness? So somehow the monk or the plain clothes rogue would get no weakness while a fighter in heavy armor got weakness?
I'm guessing Paizo thought, since AC is still in play, that they assumed the tradeoff would be the Monk or Plain Clothes Rogue would be easier to hit than a Fighter in heavy armor... which I don't really agree with.
Part of me says that wearing Archaic clothes should give 8 weakness... but then I think about how squishy that would make unarmored castors...
moosher12 wrote:
What I especially love is the new option to reduce the base price of Starfinder armor by half to lose the environmental protections. I remember bringing that up during the playtest that I wanted to see the option for adventurers that never expected to enter space, or for stationed terrestrial guardsman who would never have to worry about a lack of air.
Or if you want to use Starfinder items of a campaign setting that doesn't include space or vacuums at all.
So... I was watching this video made by Psi Prime Productions (if you don't know who that is, I recommend checking him out, he makes some great videos for Pathfinder/Starfinder 2e, including build and setting idea guides):
It's basically him summarizing the Paizo Live! for September.
One thing he noted, and the reason I made this thread, was that during the live, the presenters got hung up in how, in the art of the GM Core on page 234, Obo is losing her sandwich, and started throwing out ideas for
A Sandwich Artisan Background and
A Sandwich Witchwarper Paradox
Anyone else want to take a crack at homebrewing this? If so, I'll go first:
Sandwich Artisan:
You have dedicated yourself to the art of Sandwich making. From baking the bread that will hold it all together, concocting the perfect combination of sauces, finding the most delicious vegetables, to sourcing the most scrumptious cuts of meat (or faux meat, for the vegetarians). Some might see this as a making you a one-note chef, but your deep dive into sandwich making has given a more diverse set of culinary skills then most would expect.
Choose two attribute boosts. One must be to Dexterity or Wisdom, and one is a free attribute boost.
You’re trained in the Society skill and the Cooking Lore skill. You gain the Streetwise skill feat.
Sandwich Paradox:
You've realized that reality is much like a sandwich: a layered complex combination of mineral, chemical, vegetable, and animal forms. Now, the reality itself has become your kitchen.
Tradition: Primal
Paradox Skill: Cooking Lore
...Not sure what to do regarding Paradox Spells, Warp Spells, and Quantum Field though.
I did have an interesting thought on what effect undeath might have on the River of Souls, but this is entirely speculation:
It's been stated in some sources that large amounts of death occurring at once causes the River of Souls to flood.
If that's what happens when a bunch of souls are poured in, then taking them out might cause the River to slowly dry up? Which could end up effecting the ability for new lives to be born (assuming that having a soul in Pathfinder is necessary for life to be born).
Would also explain why Pharasma and her Psychopomps are also so dead set on keeping the Daemons as far away from it as possible.
That's one reason why I wanted to discuss this, frankly: it feels like there's a disconnect between Pathfinder and Starfinder's opinions on undeath, Starfinder treating undead as morally neutral while Pathfinder implies they're not.
While yes, the devs have stated one game's canon doesn't impact the other, I feel like this is something that could cause problems for writers of both games in the future, as they have different ideas on the fundamental metaphysics of the game world and the intended moral and ethical dynamics of their respective narratives.
I'm not sure I agree with you on that. At least, not in Second Edition Starfinder. Eox might be a planet for the undead... but it isn't really a place for the living, unless they specifically have that spot designed with living visitors in mind.
There is also their feeding on the living not just literally, but also as entertainment (Zo! Media, everybody).
...And then there is the Corpse Fleet.
Also, do we have any source that "objectively" states 'this is why undead lead to the heat death of the universe'?
Yes, undeath disrupt the River of Souls... but has it been stated clearly what that does?
Basically, I'm asking, do we have something that says right out, "This is what undeath does to the Universe".
I only ask because the Book of the Dead is written by Geb, and therefore still a subjective view.
What's interesting is that we now have borais, who are apparently an exception to a lot of these ideas about undead. They aren't strengthened by void energy, for one thing, but vitality energy. They also still very clearly have their souls, and those souls don't seem to be damaged, that we can tell, from living as a borai. Granted, borai do seem to give out sooner than other undead, their bodies breaking down after a couple hundred years or so.
That might be where their "cost" comes from? I haven't re-read their SF2E entry so I forget if it's the void energy in them that is expressly linked to breaking their body down.
*Rereads the Borai's entry
It seems, similar to Brook from One Piece, that the Borai's body is sustained by the vitality of their soul.
Them breaking down is the body deteriorating to a point their soul can't sustain it.
The main expression of void energy in a Borai is that their blood gets infused with it, turning black and ichor-like... as well as being somewhat unsettling to the living.
...In fact, the Borai really do seem to pretty much be like Brook from One Piece (meaning my Brook build using Borai is perfect!). They live, they eat, they breathe, they sleep.
Heck, it's even noted that Borai can't really function in societies built solely for the undead, since they need the kinds of amenities that only the living would.
Well... this section from the Starfinder GM Core might be interesting to add in:
"Starfinder GM Core pg 185 wrote:
The vast nothingness of the Void is a merciless, lightless expanse
of manifest destruction and nihilism. Sapping and consuming
the life force of any living creature exposed to its energies,
it corrodes and disintegrates material objects to rubble, then
dust, and then nothing at all, yet the Void contains its own form
of anti-life. At their densest concentration, the plane’s energies
aggregate into bizarre, black crystalline snowflake structures.
These irregularities spontaneously generate the plane’s resident
sceaduinars. Dwelling in exquisitely lethal cities drifting in the
vacuous darkness, these so-called void raptors are incapable
of true creation and blame this flaw on some ancient betrayal
by their rivals in Creation’s Forge. Sceaduinars react violently
not only toward creatures sustained by vitality energy, but
also toward undead, whom they view as unnatural parasites
unworthy of their plane’s energies.
...So, apparently the Void CAN create life. And THAT same life also views the undead as unnatural.
Set wrote:
(Reminding me of those dumb-but-pretty/cool vampires from the first Blade movie, who wanted to summon their 'Blood God' and turn everyone on the planet into vampires, leaving them... nothing to eat, and doomed to madness and death (as we saw happens with vampires who starve) within a matter of months...)
Reminds me of the vampire servants of Dracula in the Netflix Castlevania. Only one of them (ironically, the one whom the others saw as a brainless brute) asked the understandable question: "Hey, if we kill all the humans... whose blood are we going to drink?"
Classes sell books. I'm pretty sure that as long as Second Edition is still in active development, we can expect about two classes each year. That's been their business model so far, at least.
For me it is not so much about classes but new archetypes that I am looking for especially if they recreate some of the flavor from fist edition Pathfinder which can be added back.
For instance there was an archetype modification of the bard that was an archeologist ala Indiana Jones. It would be great to see that as an archetype one could multiclass into with the second edition rules.
I don't think they need more than 25 classes. They can achieve what they want and more with more archetypes.
Also, according to the time travel section, Zon-Shelyn will readily appear as Zon-Kuthon or Shelyn to any followers who can't accept their combination.
Starfinder 1e used EAC and KAC. Kac was almost always better than EAC, which encouraged the use of energy weapons vs kinetic weapons.
I don't mind going to just AC, but I was hoping some armor would have resistance to some types of energy, or have upgrade options for that. The Tech Core is not out, so there's still time.
I was reading this thread and that got me thinking:
For the people who are more familiar with 1st edition Starfinder than PF2e/SF2e's system... What are the differences?
So... Having a bit of a problem with the GM Core (a problem I'm also experiencing with the Galaxy Guide):
I own the PDF.
I'm viewing the PDF through my browser (Microsoft Edge).
For some reason, when I open the contents sidebar, it only gives me the pages option, not the table of contents.
Any chance that could get fixed?
Hey there, Mangaholic13! I just re-downloaded the file to see if I could replicate your issue here, and I opened it in Microsoft Edge as you did, and the table of contents showed up immediately. I was also able to view the table of contents in Firefox when selecting the "Document Outline" view option as always! This means it's not an issue with the file since it is actually viewable at all and does exist, so I'm not sure what issue you're having! Could be the browser? Can you reach out to Customer Service at customer.service@paizo.com so you can send them some screenshots and they can better figure out what's happening in your specific situation?
I created a support ticket in Customer support. Sent screenshots, alongside one of my Player Core pdf to show what they appear to be missing.
I really want a planar witchwarper with the primal tradition. It seems like such a natural fit and fun concept space that for a short period of time I gaslit myself into thinking it already existed and that witchwarpers were anything-but-divine in the same way mystics have three traditions.
Not the craziest idea I've ever heard/thought of.
Perhaps the Quantum Field effect could be similar to the Anomaly one, except instead of concentration, it's manipulate?
It is a infinite power source and the best drift beacon in the universe (followed closely by the Aeon throne). So there is plenty of reason that conquering empires want to get their hands on it.
Nobody actually knows if the Starstone still makes gods, because as far as anyone can tell, nobody's touched the thing since well before the Gap. It's a heck of a lot harder to get to now, because it's sealed inside the bowels of a colossal space station that's only partially been mapped.
That, and the fact that the station itself was build during the Gap.
And speaking of the Gap::
The Gap is a period of centuries (how long? No one can be sure), where things happened, but nobody has any clue WHAT happened exactly, because there are no records of what happened.
No memories. (this REALLY freaked out the elves)
No writings.
No recordings.
Just a huge GAP with no information.
All that can be certain are a few things: Golarion is gone. There is a gigantic space station occupying its orbit.
Where did Golarion go? Nobody knows.
The gods might know... too bad they return all questions about the Gap and Lost Golarion with, "Everything is fine, nothing is broken".
TLDR: The Gap is a massive chunk of history that disappeared.
So... Having a bit of a problem with the GM Core (a problem I'm also experiencing with the Galaxy Guide):
I own the PDF.
I'm viewing the PDF through my browser (Microsoft Edge).
For some reason, when I open the contents sidebar, it only gives me the pages option, not the table of contents.
Any chance that could get fixed?
That's what I'm trying to say: ostensibly Pharasma's reasons for hating unlife, that you cannot invert void energy to sustain life indefinitely any more than you can use vitality energy to kill, which is why undead beings constantly need to feed on living things to keep entropy at bay, that attempting to do this yanks souls from the River of Souls and damages them, which in turn is damaging to the universe itself, these appear to be objective facts of the Universe, or else Geb wouldn't be devoting so much time and energy trying to refute them, and thus, in order to practice the kind of necromancy people typically want to do when playing a capital-N Necromancer (conjuring hordes of skeletons/zombies/ghosts to defeat their enemies, mostly), you're inherently committing a violation one way or another, and the only way you can believe you're not is if you similarly begin making excuses for yourself, or to just not care.
That the devs are implicitly stating there is no moral way to use undead beings, because it inherently violates and harms the body and soul of the person you're using and there's no meaningful way anyone can consent to that. That the only ethical necromancy is that which specifically rejects the intended gameplay of a "Necromancer" class or archetype by focusing on DESTROYING undead beings and laying them to rest, in which case they're indistinguishable from your average heroic cleric or wizard.
Well, one thing I can think of would depend on this question: "How long does the Necromancer intent on keeping the undead around?"
Perhaps your necromancer only creates undead on a job-by-job basis. Once the job is done, they let the bodies go back to being dead and even conduct funeral rights for them. They might even, for example, call up the spirits of a murders victims and ask, "Would you like to get vengeance with your own hands?"
I don't know, I might just have different ideas on what a "Necromancer" can constitute.
Set wrote:
Mangaholic13 wrote:
Set wrote:
*Stuff*
Funny, you'd think there would be stuff written in any of the numerous books about Pharasma holding contempt over all forms of created life...
Does the fact that it's considered life rather than unlife have anything to do with it?
I feel like there's an attempt at snark here, but a salient point, that I already made, was that bodies are being desecrated to make these flesh golems, which is itself a violation of her tenets, and yeah, it has been mentioned in books before that she doesn't like corpses to be desecrated.
Alright. Going back to your Awakened Flesh Golem, provided they had already demonstrated their intelligence and capacity for reason... I think it would make perfect sense for a cleric of Pharasma to not attack the golem or destroy it.
Yes, as you pointed out, their creation requires corpses to be desecrated... but that's on the creator, not the creation. The golem never asked to be made by desecrating corpses.
We already have a BIG example that Pharasma and her followers will spare something created that is anathema and instead focus on punishing the creator:
The Shabti
They are made from bits of mortal souls (that's a violation) and made to take whatever punishment the person they're copying will face in the afterlife (that's a major violation). And yet, Psychopomps go out of their way to FREE Shabti, find out who they were made to be a scapegoat for, and then let the Shabti go free and punish the actual person.
QuidEst wrote:
- Ethical sourcing of bodies and/or souls. Necromancy makes use of dead bodies, and the largest ethical concern is the expedient temptation of killing people for fresh bodies and/or souls. After that is using pre-deceased ones, which is a bit more philosophical when it's *just* the body. It's complicated by the damage to a soul that undeath can cause. This category is something that can at least be mitigated with permission or performing it on oneself. I'm going to lump in "it's just wrong (unnatural)" into here.
Reminds me of a joke I'd thought of for something.
The set up is, a necromancer assassin unleashes a horde of zombies. A police officer then starts charging him.
Cop: You are under arrest for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, reckless endangerment, disturbing the peace, and grave robbing!
Necromancer: Grave robbing!? I did no such thing! I obtained these zombies legally!
Cop: ...What? Also, how??
Necromancer: The corpses were donated to necromancy!
...Actually, that does raise a question: Is it considered desecrating a corpse to animate a dead body... if that dead body had been donated to necromancy?
Granted, in Geb, that's a nonissue, since Geb's own laws state, "You die on Gebbite soil, you're getting reanimated, and your mindless corpse will work the fields."
Naturally, this just incentivizes the living to see other forms of undeath.
It also leads to an entire class of undead who have no real power but still consider themselves better than the living.
I don't think it makes any sense to compare the size of the SF GM Core and Player Core.
In terms of content, no, but economically I think you can. It's a bit of a sore spot that the books are identically priced and released only a couple weeks apart when GMC is only a bit over half the size.
Especially given the shrink comes from just cutting the item section, when itemization issues have been a bit of a pain point with the system's release. Understandable, with SF being brand new, but the two paired together don't look or feel great.
This video might also provide some insight, Squiggit.
I think i've said it before but I'm wondering what will happen to the stuff that's already got a reprint in divine mysteries. Reprinting it again is the obvious choice but there's the tantalising possibility that the space gets used for something else.
Also I say this every time but don't forget these books are special errata, not true remasters. The best we're going to get are numbers tweaks, as with gunslinger and inventor.
Fair point, BotBrain. After all, if it was a true remaster, they likely wouldn't care about page count.
Funny, you'd think there would be stuff written in any of the numerous books about Pharasma holding contempt over all forms of created life...
Does the fact that it's considered life rather than unlife have anything to do with it?
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
If that's the case then why does the subtext in Book of the Dead imply so strongly that Geb's assertions of undeath being as natural as life when it's literally the energies of destruction and entropy being used for creative purposes, which is why undead have their continual need to consume and destroy, and that the living and undead can coexist when his own nation has undead dominating the living as slaves, not as equal partners, are him talking out of his ass and making excuses for himself?
The Raven Black wrote:
After all, before Remaster we could totally have Good Summoners with undead eidolon, Good casters using Animate Dead, Good PCs with undead Familiar...
Yeah, but I thought the devs' opinion on things like that was "that was a mistake" the way Asmodean paladins, Erastil's misogyny or that one thing about Zyphus were.
...Because Geb is going to obviously defend/justify himself, maybe? And is not an authority on ethics?
I mean, just look at Arazni.
...Although, feels like this thread has gotten off topic.
Isn't it supposed to be about Necro-ethics, not "Will Pharasma and her followers try to destroy you for just being a necromancer, regardless of your moral intent"?
If ethics were easy, we wouldn't have the Trolley Problem, after all.
So, I was replying on a different thread when a thought occurred to me:
RAW, does the range increase of a Sniper's Scope apply to range of Area and Auto Fire attacks?
Another very big difference between guns in Starfinder 2e vs Pathfinder 2e: Guns in Starfinder can have ammo magazines.
What that means is that most guns in Starfinder can be used to fire multiple shots instead of reloading after a single shot (unless that Pathfinder gun has repeating, in which case you need to spend 3 actions reloading it once it runs out of ammo).
Squiggit wrote:
Lia Wynn wrote:
I agree that SF2 firearms ranges are much too short. I suspect that this is because of map size limitations in published adventures.
I mean, PF2 adventures tend to be even more cramped and that didn't stop them from publishing weapons with much longer ranges than anything in SF.
If anything, the trend toward small maps makes it easier to give away big ranges, because it's less of a power enhancer. Like if your biggest battlemap is 20 squares across bumping up a seeker rifle's range up from 120 to even something wild like 500 does literally nothing.
Having high tech sniping systems get outranged by black powder rifles is just a design and storytelling choice.
I feel like the real problem isn't the range on the SF2e guns, it's that that Arquebus has no business having 150 ft increments... or at least a Reload of 2.
Also, Lia Wynn, you're reminding me of this video: Eldritch Spear Distant Spell Sniping
I know the argument isn't fully comparable (not just because it's about DnD 5e but about spells as opposed to guns). But I think it raises a similar (if different point) as Squiggit.
Also, another big difference is:
Area Fire and Auto Fire
Two different two action attacks that can be made using an Area or Automatic weapon.
With Area Fire, your gun basically shots in an area (burst, cone, or line) that forces enemies within the area to make Reflex saves against your Class DC instead of making attack rolls.
Auto Fire is similar, except it's an option instead of a ranged attack, and always a cone.
Good for enemies with high AC, but terrible reflexes.
I'm betting on no playtest. Having one always seemed like a bad idea: it's inevitably going to make a lot of people mad at the design they chose and they'll have limited time and flexibility to respond to any feedback, so better just to not scare off the preorders.
Honestly yeah. I'm kind of feeling this from SF in general. I keep looking at problems that went ignored from the core playtest or things that Paizo actively made worse and it's a big of a buzzkill. Might enjoy things more if I hadn't started with the playtest at all... and so many things were missed or trashed I'm not sure there's evidence playtesting has really helped here.
Driftbourne wrote:
The SF2e Player Core page count is the same as the PF2e Player Core, so I'm guessing the page count was set from the start of development.
Meanwhile GM core is a full 70 pages shorter than its PF counterpart (and 200 pages shorter than SF player core) ... might have been a nice place to re-include some of that cut content. Alas.
I had fun with the playtest, and I'm having fun with SF2e. I didn't take the time to compare the changes and see no reason to. I'm still playing SF1e and playing SF2e at the same time; I have fun with both; I don't even try to compare them, which is why I'm happy playing almost any edition of any game.
As far as character options that didn't make the Player Core, I don't think the GM Core is the right place to add them back in. For anything ancestry-related the recently announced ancestry books would be the right place.
Also, Paizo is not going to skip the playtest. They have to playtest the Spaceship Combat rules. Otherwise, they run the risk of REPEATING the issues SF1e had regarding the spaceship combat rules.
I think they clearly understand that they'll need player feedback this time if they want to release decent rules.
Okay, had a stupid idea recently, and thought this might be funny.
a STRENGTH based spontaneous caster. Only unarmored proficiency for armor, only unarmed attacks. you have base 2+1 slots per rank. your special gimmick is "Flex casting" any spell that has the auditory trait, instead gains the manipulate trait as you are casting by flexing your incredible muscles and striking various poses. Two of your slots per rank are normal spontaneous casting. however. it's that second pool of spell slots that make up your REAL gimmick.
at level one you pick four spells from the arcane spell list (these are for use with your normal spontaneous spell slots) and four rank one spells FROM ANY LIST. these four spells are added to your FLEX repertoire IN A specific order (that you can change each time you prepare for the day).
To cast a spell from your flex repertoire you must roll a d4 to determine which of your four flex repertoire spells you cast.
Your Flex repertoire grows at specific points so that the die you roll grows to a d6, d8, and eventually a d10.
While I agree with the idea of a MUSCLE WIZARD, there's a slight problem with your "Flex Casting" gimmick: most spells already have the manipulate trait.
Do they? I feel like level 1 is the point at which you most feel the effects of their underwhelming damage die, photon strikes' weak damage, and their lack of non-strike based powers (literally zero).
They tend to pick up at medium levels with the right feat choices when you start accumulating powers that actually do things.
If you're interested in dealing damage (either by yourself, or helping your team do it), at first level, I'd recommend either Hampering Flare or Twin Weapons.
Hampering Flare because it lets you inflict off-guard on a target until the start of your next turn for only one action.
Twin Weapons because it lets you get the twin trait on your Solarian weapons.
I'm hoping they either clarify whether bows count or not regarding the 1-handed empowerment (maybe also something regarding Weapon Implement and handedness too). They should also clarify about how Ammunition Thaumaturgy reacts when using your Weapon Implement.
I'd also like for the Wand Implement to be a little beefed up.
I hope they make the language regarding Psychic Dueling and the Psychic Duelist Archetype clearer. I like the nature of Psychic Dueling, and I want to see more people use it.
Especially on how to HAVE a psychic duel.
Also, kind of hoping Imaginary Weapon doesn't include the Manipulate trait (but I doubt that will happen).
Me personally? I got plans for a Pharasma worshipping Ghost Necromancer. In regard to their actions, their logic is as follows: "Oh, I'm not creating undead. That's unthinkable! The spirits I call up are simply those still awaiting The Gray Lady's judgement. Since the Ushers know where they were in the line, the moment they return, they'll resume waiting."
AceofMoxen wrote:
Let's look at the wiki:[
Considering the wiki's page for Sarenrae talks about the Cult of the Dawnflower as if they still exist (which they don't)... Not sure it's going to reliable, especially since it mentions things from 1st Edition that may no longer be considered canon anymore.
"AceofMoxen wrote:
Quote:
Iomedae still bears a slight grudge against her for not revealing Aroden's impending death
This is silly, and the only source seems to be a 2008 book. I really hope this isn't canon, especially as it appears to be only "legends" that Phrasma knew. (there is some Canon dispute on Phrasma's foreknowledge)
Yet this...(YMMV):
"AceofMoxen wrote:
Quote:
Pharasma's clergy often worked with those of Aesocar, especially those who delivered Azlanti babies
This is interesting. Aesocar is labeled as LG, but she was involved in Azlanti "creation of life, creating many lifeforms through magic." I assume Pharasma was aware that the Azlanti were slaves of the Alghollthu, making any lifeform they create also slaves. So maybe Phrasma is ok with the creation of slave races? That's pretty evil.
Maybe Pharasma is more evil than I thought.
Proves she's evil? How do you know she knew of the Alghollthu? What are you basing the assumption on?
By that logic, Iomedae is evil because she didn't instantly stop Tar-Baphon from nuking Lastwall.
Granted, both you and Squiggit are right: Pharasma and her clergy do not believe in giving the undead any quarter.
Also, to note, Pharasma isn't the only deity with anathema against undead. Sarenrae has it too.
So does the Dwarven God Magrim (who also includes damaging souls, so many creating undead doesn't actually damage a soul?)
The Mwangi deity Luhar (who also includes asking the dead questions)
Fandarra, the Giant Goddess
Gozreh
So, yeah, even an ethical necromancer is going to step on the toes of a couple different religious groups.
I'm aware, but I wanted a bow. Was going for a Kikyō vibe as it was for Season of Ghosts. I did end up taking the sukgong instead. But I still would have rather had a daikyū. Just not the vibe, feels too technological. I want an elegant bow, not a medieval gat!
But yeah, for now I'm working with it. Just voicing a wish for the remaster.
...And I understand and sympathize with that moosher12.
That SAID:
THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THE PSYCHIC, MOOSHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU WANT TO EXPRESS YOUR WISHES FOR THE REMASTERED THAUMATURGE, THEN MAKE A THREAD ABOUT THAT! STOP USING THIS ONE!
YOU ARE DERAILING THE THREAD BY DOING THAT!
HECK, IF YOU WANT, I'LL MAKE SUCH A THREAD FOR YOU!
*Refocused*
Sorry, it's just that you've been told this, Moosher. Stop derailing the thread.
And with that off my chest...
NorrKnekten wrote:
As for Psychic, I feel like all of the good suggestions has already been said but I want more 'weird' spell-like powers from feats. They already have some of it but I want to see more sub-class specific ones.
Agreed, NorrKnekten. Right now, each Subconscious Mind only has a feat each.
Not to mention, Dream Guise seems pointless, while Emotional Surge should be available to all, IMO.
